Bernie: "Today the Walton family of Walmart own more wealth than the bottom 40 percent of America."

[bedowin62]

LOL, unions provided "opportunities?" That's classic

For good wages yes.

No...Unions coerced and blackmailed businesses into paying wages far above the market rate.
Business will always do what it must to maintain profitability. Hence the reason why unions represent less than 7% of the private sector work force.

And wages are stagnant.

Yes, you destroyed the union industries like the automotive market. The only profitable US manufacturers are foreign manufacturers in right to work States not saddled with union costs. The idea that you will get rising wages in the long run out of companies you prevent from being profitable is, well, so you.

So a serious question. I am a business owner. I run a services company, most of my staff make well above average. I do have two low end employees though who are on welfare. Here's the thing, Holmes, they are low paid because they need to be managed closely. Their work needs to be checked far more than others. They will both do OK for a while then just for whatever reason turn their brains off and do completely dumb ass things you just look at and say WTF, how can anyone do such crap work?

They aren't worth to me what it would take for them to live without welfare. You force their wages higher, I will fire them both and hire better employees, which I could hire since you're forcing me to pay higher wages. They are both OK for what I pay them, though both when then fuck up badly enough get management question if we should fire them for what they earn now. Pay them more? No freaking way.

So what say you, brain? You want me to fire them? BTW, when I say serious question, the situation is real. I'm not going to actually fire them though based on the word of an Internet moron who knows zero of what he's talking about and is just spewing socialist rhetoric. But if the choice were up to you, what should I do? Pay them what I do and keep them or fire them and hire better employees worth a "living wage?"

Yes I know the rich have been making claims like that for a long time. Well every time min wage is increased it doesn't happen. So save your terrorism for somebody else, I'm not buying.

more stupidity brought to by people who believe in trickle-UP

 

[bedowin62]

For good wages yes.

How did they do that? Unions don't hire anyone.

They make sure employees get good wages.

No..They don't....Unions coerce business with intimidation.
Do you think any business wants a union mucking up the labor market and forcing an employer into paying above market wages leaving that business to non competitive status?
I cite the Stella D'Oro bakery case featured in an HBO special.
The company was getting killed by other bakers paying market wages in other parts of the country.
Teh Stella D'Oro workers were instructed by the union to walk out. The company told the union that the strike would not change anything. Wage and benefit concessions had ot be made or the plant would close. The strike lingered for months. Workers living off strike benefits were struggling. Some interviewed in the special said they wanted to go back to work even if it were for what the company was offering. The more militant workers wanted to continue the job action.....The union took the compnay to court. The judge ruled in the favor of the union. The judge's opinion was the company was not bargaining in good faith and forced the company to accept the union's terms.
Less than a week later, the company sold the plant to another baker which closed the plant. Instead of getting most of the wages they were making, they got nothing.
The company sold the assets of the plant to itself and transferred the Stella D'Oro work to a plant outside NY State.
The union in this case, simply over played it's hand at the expense of the workers. The union basically screwed its own members. The union moved on to fight other battles. The workers got unemployment.

Kaz is short for Kalamazoo, Michigan, my home town. I haven't lived there since I graduated high school, but it's where I grew up. Unions destroyed Michigan and the auto industry. Today Ford makes most of it's cars for sale in the US to Mexico to avoid the unions they are saddled with in US plants, and the foreign owned automakers went to right to work States in the south, like North Carolina, where I live now.

Well put, Spoon. and yeah, "brain," the unions created tons of jobs, didn't they? LOL. You need a brain

No it was the car execs, not unions. The execs had them making cars people didn't want. Detroit was making gas guzzlers when people wanted efficient cars. Styling was aweful, they didn't catch up till recently in that department.

WRONG AGAIN YOU IDIOT. people preferred the larger vehicles, even the trucks

 

[Wyatt earp]

LOL, unions provided "opportunities?" That's classic

For good wages yes.

No...Unions coerced and blackmailed businesses into paying wages far above the market rate.
Business will always do what it must to maintain profitability. Hence the reason why unions represent less than 7% of the private sector work force.

And wages are stagnant.

Yes, you destroyed the union industries like the automotive market. The only profitable US manufacturers are foreign manufacturers in right to work States not saddled with union costs. The idea that you will get rising wages in the long run out of companies you prevent from being profitable is, well, so you.

So a serious question. I am a business owner. I run a services company, most of my staff make well above average. I do have two low end employees though who are on welfare. Here's the thing, Holmes, they are low paid because they need to be managed closely. Their work needs to be checked far more than others. They will both do OK for a while then just for whatever reason turn their brains off and do completely dumb ass things you just look at and say WTF, how can anyone do such crap work?

They aren't worth to me what it would take for them to live without welfare. You force their wages higher, I will fire them both and hire better employees, which I could hire since you're forcing me to pay higher wages. They are both OK for what I pay them, though both when then fuck up badly enough get management question if we should fire them for what they earn now. Pay them more? No freaking way.

So what say you, brain? You want me to fire them? BTW, when I say serious question, the situation is real. I'm not going to actually fire them though based on the word of an Internet moron who knows zero of what he's talking about and is just spewing socialist rhetoric. But if the choice were up to you, what should I do? Pay them what I do and keep them or fire them and hire better employees worth a "living wage?"

Yes I know the rich have been making claims like that for a long time. Well every time min wage is increased it doesn't happen. So save your terrorism for somebody else, I'm not buying.

But you know what did happen every time they raised the MW in the past 20 years?

They are still FUCKING poor

 

[Wyatt earp]

How did they do that? Unions don't hire anyone.

They make sure employees get good wages.

No..They don't....Unions coerce business with intimidation.
Do you think any business wants a union mucking up the labor market and forcing an employer into paying above market wages leaving that business to non competitive status?
I cite the Stella D'Oro bakery case featured in an HBO special.
The company was getting killed by other bakers paying market wages in other parts of the country.
Teh Stella D'Oro workers were instructed by the union to walk out. The company told the union that the strike would not change anything. Wage and benefit concessions had ot be made or the plant would close. The strike lingered for months. Workers living off strike benefits were struggling. Some interviewed in the special said they wanted to go back to work even if it were for what the company was offering. The more militant workers wanted to continue the job action.....The union took the compnay to court. The judge ruled in the favor of the union. The judge's opinion was the company was not bargaining in good faith and forced the company to accept the union's terms.
Less than a week later, the company sold the plant to another baker which closed the plant. Instead of getting most of the wages they were making, they got nothing.
The company sold the assets of the plant to itself and transferred the Stella D'Oro work to a plant outside NY State.
The union in this case, simply over played it's hand at the expense of the workers. The union basically screwed its own members. The union moved on to fight other battles. The workers got unemployment.

Kaz is short for Kalamazoo, Michigan, my home town. I haven't lived there since I graduated high school, but it's where I grew up. Unions destroyed Michigan and the auto industry. Today Ford makes most of it's cars for sale in the US to Mexico to avoid the unions they are saddled with in US plants, and the foreign owned automakers went to right to work States in the south, like North Carolina, where I live now.

Well put, Spoon. and yeah, "brain," the unions created tons of jobs, didn't they? LOL. You need a brain

No it was the car execs, not unions. The execs had them making cars people didn't want. Detroit was making gas guzzlers when people wanted efficient cars. Styling was aweful, they didn't catch up till recently in that department.

WRONG AGAIN YOU IDIOT. people preferred the larger vehicles, even the trucks

Guess the fuck head missed it when they started finding coke cans in Ford cars. The Union auto worker was terrible in the 70s~80s always reports about them drunk, asleep, or abusing the system.

 

[kaz]

For good wages yes.

How did they do that? Unions don't hire anyone.

They make sure employees get good wages.

No..They don't....Unions coerce business with intimidation.
Do you think any business wants a union mucking up the labor market and forcing an employer into paying above market wages leaving that business to non competitive status?
I cite the Stella D'Oro bakery case featured in an HBO special.
The company was getting killed by other bakers paying market wages in other parts of the country.
Teh Stella D'Oro workers were instructed by the union to walk out. The company told the union that the strike would not change anything. Wage and benefit concessions had ot be made or the plant would close. The strike lingered for months. Workers living off strike benefits were struggling. Some interviewed in the special said they wanted to go back to work even if it were for what the company was offering. The more militant workers wanted to continue the job action.....The union took the compnay to court. The judge ruled in the favor of the union. The judge's opinion was the company was not bargaining in good faith and forced the company to accept the union's terms.
Less than a week later, the company sold the plant to another baker which closed the plant. Instead of getting most of the wages they were making, they got nothing.
The company sold the assets of the plant to itself and transferred the Stella D'Oro work to a plant outside NY State.
The union in this case, simply over played it's hand at the expense of the workers. The union basically screwed its own members. The union moved on to fight other battles. The workers got unemployment.

Kaz is short for Kalamazoo, Michigan, my home town. I haven't lived there since I graduated high school, but it's where I grew up. Unions destroyed Michigan and the auto industry. Today Ford makes most of it's cars for sale in the US to Mexico to avoid the unions they are saddled with in US plants, and the foreign owned automakers went to right to work States in the south, like North Carolina, where I live now.

Well put, Spoon. and yeah, "brain," the unions created tons of jobs, didn't they? LOL. You need a brain

No it was the car execs, not unions. The execs had them making cars people didn't want. Detroit was making gas guzzlers when people wanted efficient cars. Styling was aweful, they didn't catch up till recently in that department.

That was certainly a factor, Detroit was a failure on multiple levels, but to discount the unions as being part of the problem is simpleton, and like most simpleton points wrong. Look at what happened to the city of Detroit, that was unions, the fat cat execs were long gone, Holmes

 

[kaz]

LOL, unions provided "opportunities?" That's classic

For good wages yes.

No...Unions coerced and blackmailed businesses into paying wages far above the market rate.
Business will always do what it must to maintain profitability. Hence the reason why unions represent less than 7% of the private sector work force.

And wages are stagnant.

Yes, you destroyed the union industries like the automotive market. The only profitable US manufacturers are foreign manufacturers in right to work States not saddled with union costs. The idea that you will get rising wages in the long run out of companies you prevent from being profitable is, well, so you.

So a serious question. I am a business owner. I run a services company, most of my staff make well above average. I do have two low end employees though who are on welfare. Here's the thing, Holmes, they are low paid because they need to be managed closely. Their work needs to be checked far more than others. They will both do OK for a while then just for whatever reason turn their brains off and do completely dumb ass things you just look at and say WTF, how can anyone do such crap work?

They aren't worth to me what it would take for them to live without welfare. You force their wages higher, I will fire them both and hire better employees, which I could hire since you're forcing me to pay higher wages. They are both OK for what I pay them, though both when then fuck up badly enough get management question if we should fire them for what they earn now. Pay them more? No freaking way.

So what say you, brain? You want me to fire them? BTW, when I say serious question, the situation is real. I'm not going to actually fire them though based on the word of an Internet moron who knows zero of what he's talking about and is just spewing socialist rhetoric. But if the choice were up to you, what should I do? Pay them what I do and keep them or fire them and hire better employees worth a "living wage?"

Yes I know the rich have been making claims like that for a long time. Well every time min wage is increased it doesn't happen. So save your terrorism for somebody else, I'm not buying.

That was not the question, Holmes, the question was I laid out a scenario with two actual people instead of hundreds of thousands of unnamed ones. in your view, in that scenario, should I fire them?

Liberals are like the bombers in wars who don't comprehend they are dropping bombs on actual people

 

[kaz]

For good wages yes.

No...Unions coerced and blackmailed businesses into paying wages far above the market rate.
Business will always do what it must to maintain profitability. Hence the reason why unions represent less than 7% of the private sector work force.

And wages are stagnant.

Yes, you destroyed the union industries like the automotive market. The only profitable US manufacturers are foreign manufacturers in right to work States not saddled with union costs. The idea that you will get rising wages in the long run out of companies you prevent from being profitable is, well, so you.

So a serious question. I am a business owner. I run a services company, most of my staff make well above average. I do have two low end employees though who are on welfare. Here's the thing, Holmes, they are low paid because they need to be managed closely. Their work needs to be checked far more than others. They will both do OK for a while then just for whatever reason turn their brains off and do completely dumb ass things you just look at and say WTF, how can anyone do such crap work?

They aren't worth to me what it would take for them to live without welfare. You force their wages higher, I will fire them both and hire better employees, which I could hire since you're forcing me to pay higher wages. They are both OK for what I pay them, though both when then fuck up badly enough get management question if we should fire them for what they earn now. Pay them more? No freaking way.

So what say you, brain? You want me to fire them? BTW, when I say serious question, the situation is real. I'm not going to actually fire them though based on the word of an Internet moron who knows zero of what he's talking about and is just spewing socialist rhetoric. But if the choice were up to you, what should I do? Pay them what I do and keep them or fire them and hire better employees worth a "living wage?"

Yes I know the rich have been making claims like that for a long time. Well every time min wage is increased it doesn't happen. So save your terrorism for somebody else, I'm not buying.

But you know what did happen every time they raised the MW in the past 20 years?

They are still FUCKING poor

Actually unemployment goes up every time the minimum wage does. Brain is vacuous. He must be the brain of a blond

 

[bedowin62]

Americans rekindle their love for big SUVs - CBS News
www.cbsnews.com/.../are-americans-switching-back-to-big-car...

• Cached
• Similar

CBS News
Loading...
Nov 11, 2014 - Krebs noted that the new versions of large SUVs and trucks are selling ... models of light-duty vehicles, including SUVs, vans and pickup trucks. ... enabled people to stay in the large SUV's that we know they prefer to drive

 

[bedowin62]

Americans rekindle their love for big SUVs - CBS News
www.cbsnews.com/.../are-americans-switching-back-to-big-car...

• Cached
• Similar

CBS News
Loading...
Nov 11, 2014 - Krebs noted that the new versions of large SUVs and trucks are selling ... models of light-duty vehicles, including SUVs, vans and pickup trucks. ... enabled people to stay in the large SUV's that we know they prefer to drive

 

[Brain357]

Asshats don't get to determine what is a "decent wage" unless they own the company. See how that works?

Then do the work yourself. Otherwise, STFU and pay up. You can't have your slaves. Deal with it.

I never employed slaves and as I am retired, I have no need even for them. Sorry.

because there are no Walmart shoppers that aren't republican.

are you retarded??

Yeah, but it's you greedy Republican Walmart-Worshippers who are all for paying American Workers shite wages. So it's gonna be funny watching y'all be forced to bail the Waltons out with your tax dollars. Poetic Justice.

You like poetic justice?

On the advice of a now deceased friend I started buying Walmart stock in the early 1990s for my retirement fund at an average price of under $12/sh.
As part of my retirement strategy I sold it over the course of the past year at an average price over $78/sh.

My 5 adult children are now enjoying the fruit of my capitalist ways and smartly building their own houses of stone and brick.

Meanwhile you sit here banging out your frustrations at USMB as a world of opportunity passes you by.

Now that's my idea of poetic justice.

Don't worry, you'll bail the Waltons out at some point. Walmart is dying a slow painful death. The Waltons will demand their Taxpayer Bailout. You can bet on it. And we'll see what y'all worshippers say then.

But my guess is, you'll justify it somehow. Because we know y'all greedy white Republicans love Corporate Welfare. You only hate welfare that helps Americans who actually need the help.

It's funny how they claim to want small government, but then support all that corporate welfare. As if you could have both...

FUNNY HOW LEFT-WING LOSERS RANT ABOUT CORPORATE WELFARE, as if they even TRIED to end any of it in the four years Democrats controlled both chambers of Congress and the 2 of those years with the White House too.

idiots and hypocrites

As if either side ever does anything. Repubs can't control congress and debt limit grows.

 

[Brain357]

How did they do that? Unions don't hire anyone.

They make sure employees get good wages.

No..They don't....Unions coerce business with intimidation.
Do you think any business wants a union mucking up the labor market and forcing an employer into paying above market wages leaving that business to non competitive status?
I cite the Stella D'Oro bakery case featured in an HBO special.
The company was getting killed by other bakers paying market wages in other parts of the country.
Teh Stella D'Oro workers were instructed by the union to walk out. The company told the union that the strike would not change anything. Wage and benefit concessions had ot be made or the plant would close. The strike lingered for months. Workers living off strike benefits were struggling. Some interviewed in the special said they wanted to go back to work even if it were for what the company was offering. The more militant workers wanted to continue the job action.....The union took the compnay to court. The judge ruled in the favor of the union. The judge's opinion was the company was not bargaining in good faith and forced the company to accept the union's terms.
Less than a week later, the company sold the plant to another baker which closed the plant. Instead of getting most of the wages they were making, they got nothing.
The company sold the assets of the plant to itself and transferred the Stella D'Oro work to a plant outside NY State.
The union in this case, simply over played it's hand at the expense of the workers. The union basically screwed its own members. The union moved on to fight other battles. The workers got unemployment.

Kaz is short for Kalamazoo, Michigan, my home town. I haven't lived there since I graduated high school, but it's where I grew up. Unions destroyed Michigan and the auto industry. Today Ford makes most of it's cars for sale in the US to Mexico to avoid the unions they are saddled with in US plants, and the foreign owned automakers went to right to work States in the south, like North Carolina, where I live now.

Well put, Spoon. and yeah, "brain," the unions created tons of jobs, didn't they? LOL. You need a brain

No it was the car execs, not unions. The execs had them making cars people didn't want. Detroit was making gas guzzlers when people wanted efficient cars. Styling was aweful, they didn't catch up till recently in that department.

WRONG AGAIN YOU IDIOT. people preferred the larger vehicles, even the trucks

Yes that why they got owned by Japanese companies with more efficient cars.

 

[Brain357]

Americans rekindle their love for big SUVs - CBS News
www.cbsnews.com/.../are-americans-switching-back-to-big-car...

• Cached
• Similar

CBS News
Loading...
Nov 11, 2014 - Krebs noted that the new versions of large SUVs and trucks are selling ... models of light-duty vehicles, including SUVs, vans and pickup trucks. ... enabled people to stay in the large SUV's that we know they prefer to drive

And now the U.S. companies are behind on those too.

 

[Brain357]

No...Unions coerced and blackmailed businesses into paying wages far above the market rate.
Business will always do what it must to maintain profitability. Hence the reason why unions represent less than 7% of the private sector work force.

And wages are stagnant.

Yes, you destroyed the union industries like the automotive market. The only profitable US manufacturers are foreign manufacturers in right to work States not saddled with union costs. The idea that you will get rising wages in the long run out of companies you prevent from being profitable is, well, so you.

So a serious question. I am a business owner. I run a services company, most of my staff make well above average. I do have two low end employees though who are on welfare. Here's the thing, Holmes, they are low paid because they need to be managed closely. Their work needs to be checked far more than others. They will both do OK for a while then just for whatever reason turn their brains off and do completely dumb ass things you just look at and say WTF, how can anyone do such crap work?

They aren't worth to me what it would take for them to live without welfare. You force their wages higher, I will fire them both and hire better employees, which I could hire since you're forcing me to pay higher wages. They are both OK for what I pay them, though both when then fuck up badly enough get management question if we should fire them for what they earn now. Pay them more? No freaking way.

So what say you, brain? You want me to fire them? BTW, when I say serious question, the situation is real. I'm not going to actually fire them though based on the word of an Internet moron who knows zero of what he's talking about and is just spewing socialist rhetoric. But if the choice were up to you, what should I do? Pay them what I do and keep them or fire them and hire better employees worth a "living wage?"

Yes I know the rich have been making claims like that for a long time. Well every time min wage is increased it doesn't happen. So save your terrorism for somebody else, I'm not buying.

But you know what did happen every time they raised the MW in the past 20 years?

They are still FUCKING poor

Actually unemployment goes up every time the minimum wage does. Brain is vacuous. He must be the brain of a blond

No actually it never has, please show proof. Seattle is doing great right now.

 

[Brain357]

For good wages yes.

No...Unions coerced and blackmailed businesses into paying wages far above the market rate.
Business will always do what it must to maintain profitability. Hence the reason why unions represent less than 7% of the private sector work force.

And wages are stagnant.

Yes, you destroyed the union industries like the automotive market. The only profitable US manufacturers are foreign manufacturers in right to work States not saddled with union costs. The idea that you will get rising wages in the long run out of companies you prevent from being profitable is, well, so you.

So a serious question. I am a business owner. I run a services company, most of my staff make well above average. I do have two low end employees though who are on welfare. Here's the thing, Holmes, they are low paid because they need to be managed closely. Their work needs to be checked far more than others. They will both do OK for a while then just for whatever reason turn their brains off and do completely dumb ass things you just look at and say WTF, how can anyone do such crap work?

They aren't worth to me what it would take for them to live without welfare. You force their wages higher, I will fire them both and hire better employees, which I could hire since you're forcing me to pay higher wages. They are both OK for what I pay them, though both when then fuck up badly enough get management question if we should fire them for what they earn now. Pay them more? No freaking way.

So what say you, brain? You want me to fire them? BTW, when I say serious question, the situation is real. I'm not going to actually fire them though based on the word of an Internet moron who knows zero of what he's talking about and is just spewing socialist rhetoric. But if the choice were up to you, what should I do? Pay them what I do and keep them or fire them and hire better employees worth a "living wage?"

Yes I know the rich have been making claims like that for a long time. Well every time min wage is increased it doesn't happen. So save your terrorism for somebody else, I'm not buying.

That was not the question, Holmes, the question was I laid out a scenario with two actual people instead of hundreds of thousands of unnamed ones. in your view, in that scenario, should I fire them?

Liberals are like the bombers in wars who don't comprehend they are dropping bombs on actual people

Do whatever you want. But don't pretend that's what would happen in a noticeable scale. We have lots of history to look at and it never happens.

 

[Brain357]

Myth: Increasing the minimum wage will cause people to lose their jobs.

Not true: In a letter to President Obama and congressional leaders urging a minimum wage increase, more than 600 economists, including 7 Nobel Prize winners wrote, "In recent years there have been important developments in the academic literature on the effect of increases in the minimum wage on employment, with the weight of evidence now showing that increases in the minimum wage have had little or no negative effect on the employment of minimum-wage workers, even during times of weakness in the labor market. Research suggests that a minimum-wage increase could have a small stimulative effect on the economy as low-wage workers spend their additional earnings, raising demand and job growth, and providing some help on the jobs front."

 

[bedowin62]

Myth: Increasing the minimum wage will cause people to lose their jobs.

Not true: In a letter to President Obama and congressional leaders urging a minimum wage increase, more than 600 economists, including 7 Nobel Prize winners wrote, "In recent years there have been important developments in the academic literature on the effect of increases in the minimum wage on employment, with the weight of evidence now showing that increases in the minimum wage have had little or no negative effect on the employment of minimum-wage workers, even during times of weakness in the labor market. Research suggests that a minimum-wage increase could have a small stimulative effect on the economy as low-wage workers spend their additional earnings, raising demand and job growth, and providing some help on the jobs front."

if it's not harmful then why do the same people that wanted it foisted on others want AN EXEMPTION FROM IT?

LIBS ARE LOSERS WHO LIE TO THEMSELVES


Hypocrites: LA Labor Wants Exemption from $15 Min. Wage
www.breitbart.com/.../hypocrites-l-a-labor-wants-exemption-fro...

• Cached

Breitbart
Loading...
May 27, 2015 - Last week, the minimum wage hike to $15 an hour by 2020 passed in a ... Once again, the soaring rhetoric of helping the working poor is just a cover for city ... in response to the labor unions' hypocrisy, “(Hicks) really is saying that a .... want to be exempt from the $15/hour minimum wage law so they can get ...

 

[bedowin62]

Of course: Labor seeks exemption from L.A. minimum wage ...
hotair.com/.../of-course-labor-seeks-exemption-from-l-a-minimu...

• Cached

Hot Air
Loading...
May 27, 2015 - Of course: Labor seeks exemption from L.A. minimum wage law it pushed ... Wait until you hear why they think they should get an exemption. ... Unions Want Exemption to Mandatory $15/hr Minimum Wage they Just Pushed ... The liberal Left isn't even trying to obfuscate their hypocrisy anymore…it's all laid

 

[bedowin62]

New Report Reveals the Truth About ACORN – Employment ...
www.epionline.org › Release

• Cached
• Similar

ACORN and Minimum Wage Hypocrisy – ACORN is a vocal proponent of minimum ... ACORN actually sued the state of California to have its employees exempted from the ... Not only does ACORN fail to pay their employees the “living wage” which they advocate, but ACORN's failure to pay their employees overtime or in a ...

 

[Brain357]

Myth: Increasing the minimum wage will cause people to lose their jobs.

Not true: In a letter to President Obama and congressional leaders urging a minimum wage increase, more than 600 economists, including 7 Nobel Prize winners wrote, "In recent years there have been important developments in the academic literature on the effect of increases in the minimum wage on employment, with the weight of evidence now showing that increases in the minimum wage have had little or no negative effect on the employment of minimum-wage workers, even during times of weakness in the labor market. Research suggests that a minimum-wage increase could have a small stimulative effect on the economy as low-wage workers spend their additional earnings, raising demand and job growth, and providing some help on the jobs front."

if it's not harmful then why do the same people that wanted it foisted on others want AN EXEMPTION FROM IT?

LIBS ARE LOSERS WHO LIE TO THEMSELVES


Hypocrites: LA Labor Wants Exemption from $15 Min. Wage
www.breitbart.com/.../hypocrites-l-a-labor-wants-exemption-fro...

• Cached

Breitbart
Loading...
May 27, 2015 - Last week, the minimum wage hike to $15 an hour by 2020 passed in a ... Once again, the soaring rhetoric of helping the working poor is just a cover for city ... in response to the labor unions' hypocrisy, “(Hicks) really is saying that a .... want to be exempt from the $15/hour minimum wage law so they can get ...

I've never seen any proof it does. That isn't proof.

 

[kaz]

For good wages yes.

No...Unions coerced and blackmailed businesses into paying wages far above the market rate.
Business will always do what it must to maintain profitability. Hence the reason why unions represent less than 7% of the private sector work force.

And wages are stagnant.

Yes, you destroyed the union industries like the automotive market. The only profitable US manufacturers are foreign manufacturers in right to work States not saddled with union costs. The idea that you will get rising wages in the long run out of companies you prevent from being profitable is, well, so you.

So a serious question. I am a business owner. I run a services company, most of my staff make well above average. I do have two low end employees though who are on welfare. Here's the thing, Holmes, they are low paid because they need to be managed closely. Their work needs to be checked far more than others. They will both do OK for a while then just for whatever reason turn their brains off and do completely dumb ass things you just look at and say WTF, how can anyone do such crap work?

They aren't worth to me what it would take for them to live without welfare. You force their wages higher, I will fire them both and hire better employees, which I could hire since you're forcing me to pay higher wages. They are both OK for what I pay them, though both when then fuck up badly enough get management question if we should fire them for what they earn now. Pay them more? No freaking way.

So what say you, brain? You want me to fire them? BTW, when I say serious question, the situation is real. I'm not going to actually fire them though based on the word of an Internet moron who knows zero of what he's talking about and is just spewing socialist rhetoric. But if the choice were up to you, what should I do? Pay them what I do and keep them or fire them and hire better employees worth a "living wage?"

Yes I know the rich have been making claims like that for a long time. Well every time min wage is increased it doesn't happen. So save your terrorism for somebody else, I'm not buying.

That was not the question, Holmes, the question was I laid out a scenario with two actual people instead of hundreds of thousands of unnamed ones. in your view, in that scenario, should I fire them?

Liberals are like the bombers in wars who don't comprehend they are dropping bombs on actual people

When danger reared it's ugly head, brain turned his tail and fled...